Jennifer Chase filed an application alleging a continuous trauma injury to multiple orthopedic body parts, sustained from November 30, 2016 through January 10, 2019 for the orthopedic injuries – later amended to include psyche injuries – while employed by defendant as a regional sales manager for Southern Implants of North America.

She sought reconsideration of the Findings & Award (“F&A”) issued on June 20, 2025 by the WCJ who found that she did not sustain a psychiatric injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

The WCAB granted the Petition for Reconsideration and issued a Notice of Intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500.00 jointly and severally against applicant’s attorneys Ghitterman, Ghitterman & Feld and Anton Diffenderfer (CAL BAR #229171). A final decision on the merits of the petition was deferred pending resolution of the issue of sanctions in the case of Jennifer Chase v Southern Implants of North America -ADJ12865802 (September 2025).

The WCAB noted in its Opinion that with the exception of Hegglin, each of the citations it quoted as having been made by applicant attorneys were ” flawed in significant ways, and in two cases, the citations appear to entirely fabricated.”

The Opinion went on to specify that “In rough order of egregiousness, the proper citation for the 1975 case Patterson v. WCAB is 53 Cal.App.3d 916; the Petition’s given citation, 40 Cal.App.3d 936, is not a real citation, but corresponds most closely to a completely unrelated criminal case from 1974, People v. Orlosky (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 935.”

“Next, the Petition’s purported citation to Tyner v. WCAB (1998) 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 1744 instead corresponds to Wright v. W.C.A.B, a decision relating to an entirely different issue. It appears that the Petition is attempting to cite to Tyler v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 924.”

“Finally, and of greatest concern, the citations to Maislin v. WCAB (2022) 87 Cal. Comp. Cases 765 (writ den.) and Rios v. City of West Sacramento (2013) 2013 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 626 (WCAB panel decision) appear to be entirely fabricated. The cite given in the Petition for Maislin most closely corresponds to McCullar v. SMC Contracting, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1005 [87 Cal. Comp. Cases 758], an unrelated civil case involving the independent contractor doctrine. Based on our review, no case under the name Maislin has been filed in the California workers’ compensation system since electronic records began, nor do we have any record of a writ by that name ever having been filed or denied by the Court of Appeal. Finally, the quotation attributed to Maislin in the Petition does not appear to correspond to any real case.”

“The citation to Rios v. City of West Sacramento (2013) 2013 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 626 (WCAB panel decision) appears similarly nonexistent. The provided citation is actually to Santino v. Strategic Alliance Staffing Servs. (2013) 2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 626, an unrelated case, nor does the caption Rios v. City of West Sacramento appear to correspond to any real case.”

“All of these flawed citations are concerning, but we are particularly perturbed by the apparent conjuration from thin air of Maislin and Rios – two cases which, as far as we can tell, simply do not exist. It is difficult to comprehend how such apparently fake citations could make their way into a pleading filed under penalty of perjury, without having been caught and corrected prior to filing with the normal exercise of due diligence.”

“Here, although it seems apparent that the citations in question fall afoul of WCAB Rule 10421, Business and Professions Code section 6068, and Rule 3.3 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, we are left in the dark as to motive and method – in other words, how such citations were included in the Petition in the first place, and why. To that end, the operative question before us is not so much how the Petition was drafted in a strictly mechanical sense – for example, whether artificial intelligence (AI) was involved – as how it came to be signed and submitted under penalty of perjury by a licensed attorney.”

“We will therefore issue a Notice of Intention (“NIT”) to impose sanctions, in order to provide applicant’s attorney an opportunity to respond to our concerns and explain what occurred. We anticipate that the response will explain how these errors came to be included in the Petition and why they were not caught and corrected prior to filing, along with any other information that applicant’s attorneys deem relevant in assessing whether sanctions should be imposed.”